2nd Amendment thoughts...

(H/T to Ann Barnhardt)

White is the new black...

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) - Prosecutors say the brutal beating of a teenager last week in Columbia's Five Points doesn't appear to have been racially motivated, but the U.S. attorney is still reviewing the case.

Fifth Circuit Solicitor Dan Johnson, who will prosecute the eight people charged with attacking 18-year-old Carter Strange on June 20 before leaving him for dead, said no evidence suggests the beating was racially motivated other than the race of the people involved. Strange is white; the eight suspects are black.

However, Johnson said his office asked U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles to review the evidence to make sure hate crime charges are not warranted. A hate crime is legally defined as an attack motivated entirely or primarily by prejudice.

The seven juveniles charged with attacking Strange faced a judge on Monday, who granted a request that the defendants stay in jail until trial. The unnamed suspects' next court date hasn't been scheduled yet, according to Johnson.

The eighth suspect, 19-year-old Thyeem Henrey, appeared in court on Friday afternoon. The judge set bond at $750,000, which must be paid in full to allow Henrey's release.

Police say Strange was jogging home just after midnight when the suspects approached him in a parking lot near Blossom Street and beat him up. A passerby found him a block away two hours later, and called 911.

Strange said he had to have emergency brain surgery and facial reconstruction surgery after the attack, but is making a remarkable recovery. "My physical condition is amazing," said Strange. "I mean, the condition I'm in right now is a miracle."

Meanwhile, the City of Columbia has approved an emergency 11:00pm curfew around Five Points for minors under 17. Police Chief Randy Scott said the curfew is in effect seven nights a week, and will last for 60 days. "This is not about taking sides; this is not a black or white issue," Scott said on Tuesday. "This is about the safety of our city and the safety of our young people."

"I think [the curfew] is a great thing," said Strange. "They just need to make sure that they enforce it."

Making the ordinance work will require some discretion on the part of police officers. "There will be, for lack of a better word, a checklist to make sure that you do all the right things," said Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin. "There's no legal requirement that anyone carry identification, but there are some ways I think we can get to the endgame while we protect a young person's constitutional rights."

Scott said city leaders will evaluate the curfew and look into extending it past the 60-day window. Leaders from the Five Points Association and surrounding neighborhood associations said they fully support the curfew.

(End of story. My comments follow.)

"No evidence of racial motivation"?

Oh. Please. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's just raining.And I'm sure the Justice Dept. will look at this whole thing with complete objectivity. Or not.

It's times like this I'm glad we still have the 2nd Amendment.

Euthanasia justification becoming more broadbased...

June 27, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Euthanasia is on the rise in the Netherlands, and it is taking an even uglier turn than many would have expected.

Cases of euthanasia have risen from 2,500 in 2009 to 2,700 in 2010; but even more shocking, last year 21 persons suffering from the early stages of dementia, but who were otherwise in good health, were euthanized. All of these 21 “mercy killings” were subsequently approved by the official euthanasia follow-up commission.

This 2010 annual report on euthanasia has yet to be published, but key figures were released by the official news channel, NOS, last Saturday.

The program on NOS told the story of 63-year-old Guusje de Koning, one of the “beneficiaries” of euthanasia last year. In a video shot by de Koning’s husband four days before the 63-year-old woman’s death, and aired on the television station, she explains her choice to be killed to her two children.

De Koning, a sympathetic, healthy and humorous woman with a loving husband and grown-up children, explains that she didn’t want to go on living after she was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. She says she had witnessed her own father’s slow decline and death due to the illness.

“I don’t want that,” explaine de Koning to her children. “I don’t want to suffer.”

De Koning was “euthanized” in July last year. Her image is now being used to support the notion that killing of people in the first phase of dementia is a good way to avoid both suffering and the excessive cost of healthcare for elderly Netherlanders.

Euthanasia in the Netherlands is only legal when the patient is sound of mind and capable of consistently expressing the death wish. Once dementia has set in, it’s too late: even a living will made prior to the decline cannot be taken into account. The “solution” that is being proposed, therefore, is to step out of life before the disease runs its course.

For months now public meetings have been held in provincial community centers and hotels to encourage the elderly to learn about their “right” to die, even if they are in good health, but afraid of what diagnosed dementia may do to them in the near future.

However, although 95 % of the Dutch favor legal euthanasia, according to opinion polls, currently only 33 % of physicians are at this point in time prepared to euthanize a patient with incipient dementia

(End of story. My comments follow.)

Look for this to come here in the near future. If I recall correctly, one of Dr. Kervorkian's "patients" was in the early stages of Alzheimer's much like the woman in this story. That whole "quality of life" BS all over again.

So we're a society that kills off the less-than-perfect unborn, quite often justifying that we don't want them to endure a life of suffering. I'm sure at times there are completely honest folks who will own up that they just don't want to be bothered with a special-needs child.

Now we see increasing use of "mercy killing" to help those at life's end avoid suffering. Or maybe it's more about not running up lots of medical bills for the family, after all families are nowhere near as close as they once were.

I wonder if in the long run we're not cheating ourselves of the opportunity to grow spiritually. I know from my own experience that I get a lot more benefits than I give to my two autistic sons. Maybe there's more of the same for those willing to care for the elderly infirm.

Maybe we should all treat life as a gift, to be treasured and valued for as long as possible. That would involve voluntary poverty, years of commitment to caring for someone, putting someone else before ourselves.

It's sad that those are increasingly becoming radical thoughts.

New York Catholics: BOHICA!

(CNSNews.com) - In the wake New York passing a law that legalizes same-sex marriage in the state, the Roman Catholic bishops of New York have released a statement saying they now expect efforts to enact laws that go after churches that insist on teaching the "timeless truths" about marriage and family.

"We strongly uphold the Catholic Church's clear teaching that we always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love," the bishops said.

"But we just as strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman in a lifelong, loving union that is open to children, ordered for the good of those children and the spouses themselves," the bishops said. "This definition cannot change, though we realize that our beliefs about the nature of marriage will continue to be ridiculed, and that some will even now attempt to enact government sanctions against churches and religious organizations that preach these timeless truths."

The statement was signed by the bishops of all eight Roman Catholic diocese in the state of New York, led by Archbishop Timothy Dolan of the Manhattan-based Archdiocese of New York. The other bishops signing the statement included Bishop Howard Hubbard of the Albany Diocese, Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of the Brooklyn Diocese, Bishop Edward Kmiec of the Buffalo Diocese, Bishop Terry LaValley of the Ogdensburg Diocese, Bishop Matthew H. Clark of the Rochester Diocese, Bishop William Murphy of the Rockville Centre Diocese, and Bishop Robert Cunningham of the Syracuse Diocese.

The New York State Senate passed the same-sex marriage bill late Friday and Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Catholic, signed the bill into law at 11:55 Friday night. The state assembly has passed the bill the week before. The law will go into effect in 30 days.

The law was enacted just in time for New York City's annual "gay pride" parade, which takes place on Sunday. The parade runs along Fifth Avenue, passing directly in front of Saint Patrick's Cathedral, the seat of the Catholic Archdiocese of New York.

"The passage by the legislature of a bill to alter radically and forever humanity's historic understanding of marriage leaves us deeply disappointed and troubled," the New York bishops said in their statement.

"We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization," they said.

"Our society must regain what it appears to have lost--a true understanding of the meaning and the place of marriage, as revealed by God, grounded in nature, and respected by America's foundational principles," said the bishops.

The Declaration of Independence justified the American colonies' break from Great Britain based on "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God" and famously stated that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

New York State Sen. Ruben Diaz was the only state senator to speak out against the same-sex marriage bill on the Senate floor yesterday. "God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage a long time ago," Diaz said.

Diaz is a minister in the Church of God.

(End of story, my comments follow)

So now the Empire State is recognizing gay "marriage". Wonder who is next?

This issue is every bit as crucial as the fight against abortion, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia. It's flown beneath the radar as long as it has because let's face it, not too many people give a damn what a couple of other adult humans do behind closed doors. I certainly don't.

But this isn't just about legally performing sexual acrobatics with the partner of your choice. It has a lot of other ramifications. For an eye-opening account of how the legalization of same sex marriage plays out, go here: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

So the issue IS of importance, especially for those of us with small children. Just how long will it be before the militant gays and their allies ban ALL teaching that typifies homosexual acts as disordered, repugnant and immoral? Think it can't happen? Guess again. Who would have thought twenty years ago that one of the big topics in politics would be "marriage" for homosexuals?

I recall a story told about the rise of religious persecution in Soviet Russia. Seems that at first the churches were closed, then the clergy was disbanded and finally all citizens were warned that holding religious views wasn't illegal in itself but you couldn't teach those views. That teaching included anything you might say in the quiet of your home. One poet at the time summed it up as, "You can pray to God, but in a way that only He can hear you."

Yes, she was shipped off to the gulag shortly afterwards.

We don't have gulags or reeducation camps, we have "sensitivity training". Look for an increase in that for those not toeing the popular line. We'll be required to successfully attend such training in order to get our kids back, keep our jobs (ask the Southwest Airlines pilot who recently left his mike on while ranting about flight attendents.) Was he "reeducated" in diversity because he doesn't like fat older women or because he doesn't like gays? Not important, both are equally nonPC. But while he could go home every night after "training" and never had his basic liberties infringed upon, his ability to hold his job depended on his repentance and docile adherence to groupthink. The pill is sweeter but just as deadly, look for it to be more aggressively applied. Soon, real soon.

Voris on hypocritical "professional Catholics"

He very eloquently states my own thoughts about the entire sordid mess. The only thing missing is a reference to the Eighth Commandment, how it's defined in the Catechism and it's application here.

How To Get The Wife's Attention...

...in three easy steps.

(1) Determine the clothes dryer is malfunctioning and tear it down to parade rest while she's out at church.

(2) Greet her as she walks in the door with, "We're gonna be drying clothes in the garage for a few days while I wait on parts."

(3) Insure the disassembled dryer is easily seen by leaving the pieces/parts laid out on the kitchen floor.

Hey, the damned thing wasn't working and I'm the stay-at-home parent so no big deal, right?

Be responsible and caring, get arrested.

WILMINGTON, Delaware, June 17, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A pro-life leader is preparing to fight charges that were laid against him after he noticed a suspicious package outside a Wilmington abortion clinic, and called for police help.

Kurt Linnemann, the executive director for the Maryland chapter of the Center for Bioethical Reform, says the incident occurred on June 10 outside a Wilmington Planned Parenthood where he normally keeps vigil every Friday.

In an email to supporters, Linnemann, 52, said that he “noticed an unusual cardboard box strategically placed about 15 feet in front of the main doors” of the clinic, and close to where he and a handful of other pro-lifers were standing.

The others agreed that the package was suspicious, and Linnemann called the police. “Knowing abortion mills have been the target of extremists bombing, I thought it best to call 911,” he wrote.

But after police came and found the package harmless, according to Linneman, things took an unexpected turn, as one officer told Linnemann to put his sign down and put his hands behind his back. “He aggressively grabbed my wrists and began to hand cuff me,” he said.

Linnemann says he was detained along with another pro-lifer at the scene, 25-year-old Sean Kovalevich. Linnemann says that, while he has had previous run-ins with the police, this arrest was particularly shocking. “They were very aggressive and very swift in arresting me and forcing me off the street, and that was a new twist for them,” he told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN).

Kovalevich told LSN that he attempted to film the arrest, but only managed to get a few seconds on film before police turned on him as well. “They just told me ... you have to stop filming now, you’re being detained, and they grabbed the camera, turned it off, and stuck it in my pocket,” he said.

Sean was released within twenty minutes. Linneman, however,was charged with “Disorderly Conduct - Create Hazard Physical Offensive Condition with no purpose,” following a two-hour detainment.

“I asked what I did, [and] he said that you called in a false bomb scare. I shook my head and said, ‘no I didn’t,’ [and] he corrected himself and said, ‘I guess you did not use the word bomb ... you called it a suspicious package,’” Linnemann reported.

When Linneman returned to the Planned Parenthood later that day, he says that a witness told him that a police officer had called a parking enforcement officer to have his van ticketed.

“While being arrested I told the officer I needed to put money in the meter and he said it will be taken care of ... I guess it was,” he wrote.

Linnemann says he was summoned to appear in court on June 23.

Both Linnemann and his attorney, Jim Haley, told LifeSiteNews.com that Wilmington police have a history of cooperating with Planned Parenthood to unfairly target pro-life witnesses outside the abortion clinic.

“It’s very disturbing,” said Haley. “The police have used any chance they have to discourage Kurt, discourage the pro-life protesters out there. Their first reaction is always to make life difficult for those folks.”

Haley pointed to a separate incident in August 2009 in which Kurt called police to report being assaulted by a customer at the clinic. Police wound up arresting and charging Kurt with two counts of harassment and one of offensive touching. The state threw out the first two charges, and the court found Linnemann not guilty on the third.

According to court documents, the plaintiff in that case said that he pressed charges solely because police advised him that counter-suing would provide a quick means of dodging an assault charge against himself.

“It appears whenever there is any kind of police involvement out there, they use it as a basis to charge a pro-lifer. It appears to be a pattern,” Haley said.

Kurt emphasized his reliance on prayer throughout the ordeal, something that continues to sustain him as he faces charges. “When I’m not in the spirit of God, I’m intimidated,” he said.

(End of story. My comments follow.)

It's "Death by a thousand financial cuts". This guy will continue to be busted, have to continue fighting bogus charges (which means keeping a lawyer working, they ain't cheap.) and continue pouring money down a black hole until he finally gives up.

Maybe Planned Parenthood pays for the donuts and coffee at the station house. Is this all a coincidence? Is it purely by chance a suspicious package is left where the prolifers will see it, report it and get immediately busted by the local cops? If you believe it is, I've some waterfront property in Florida you may be interested in buying. See me at low tide, we'll make a deal.

On Fr. Corapi: Let it go folks.

Here's the link leading to his blog and message about his future plans: http://theblacksheepdog.us/

I'll only say that it does no good to beat the batsnot out of this topic. As Catholics we'll become more aware of coming troubles for the Church, both here in the USA and abroad. Time to knuckle down, live our lives as if we're the only copy of the Catechism people will ever see and pray our asses off.

Things are going to get worse before they get better.

God's will be done.

Welcome to the People's Republic of Texas

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (CBS) -- A judge in Corpus Christi, Texas had some harsh words for a mother charged with spanking her own child before sentencing her to probation.

"You don't spank children today," said Judge Jose Longoria. "In the old days, maybe we got spanked, but there was a different quarrel. You don't spank children."

Rosalina Gonzales had pleaded guilty to a felony charge of injury to a child for what prosecutors had described as a "pretty simple, straightforward spanking case." They noted she didn't use a belt or leave any bruises, just some red marks.

As part of the plea deal, Gonzales will serve five years probation, during which time she'll have to take parenting classes, follow CPS guidelines, and make a $50 payment to the Children's Advocacy Center.

She was arrested back in December after the child's paternal grandmother noticed red marks on the child's rear end. The grandmother took the girl, who was two years-old at the time, to the hospital to be checked out.

Gonzales who doesn't have custody of the child or her other two children, is trying to get them back, but until CPS feels she is ready the kids are living with their paternal grandmother.

(End of story. My comments follow.)

I have no comments other than to note I just finished rereading "1984". In that novel the all-powerful State turned children against their parents as it successfully sought to completely dissolve traditional concepts of family. I'll say no more.

Why isn't this top-of-the-blog-page news?

Found this on Breitbart.com via Drudge where it was placed between a link to a story detailing how kidnapped bus passengers in Mexico are forced into "gladiator like fights to the death", and another link about how the UK Navy is doing in Libya. In other words even Drudge treats this as no big story. We're being lied to and having our attention misdirected towards trivia even as attempts to fundamentally change the nation are being tried.

US Congress votes against Libya funding

The US House of Representatives voted to prohibit the use of funds for American military operations in Libya.

Lawmakers adopted the amendment to a military appropriations bill by a vote of 248 to 163.

A number of members of Congress have recently expressed their dissatisfaction at President Barack Obama's decision to go ahead with operations in Libya in March and to continue without congressional authorization.

The amendment, introduced by Democratic representative Brad Sherman from California, invokes the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law that limits presidential powers on sending troops abroad into combat zones without the consent of Congress.

Sherman's text states that "none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of the War Powers Act."

According to the War Powers Resolution, the president must seek congressional authorization to send US troops into combat and must withdraw American forces within 60 days if Congress has not authorized the military action.

The same measure was presented in another bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security but failed to pass on June 2.

Lawmakers must still approve the appropriations bill as a whole and the measure must still be approved by the Senate.

The White House has been under rising pressure from congressional critics demanding details about US goals in Libya and questioning the likely costs and duration of the campaign, in which Washington now has a supporting role.

The House of Representatives recently passed a symbolic resolution chiding Obama for not seeking congressional approval for US involvement in Libya and giving him until June 17 to respond.

(End of story. My comments follow)

So how long will it take for this appropriations bill to make it's way to El Presidente's desk? How much longer does Caesar/Obama have to use our military in his own schemes for regime change? How much deeper will our troops be involved?

Which story will get the most coverage, this one dealing with the usurpation of Congress' role in approving our military actions, or the story about a perverted politician who likes texting 17 yr. old girls?

UPDATE: Finally this makes the top of the page at Drudge: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/14/boehner-gives-obama-friday-deadline-libya/

Gays outraged that Catholics will act IAW their beliefs...

Canceled Mass outrages gays
Diocese bans parish’s service
By David Abel
Globe Staff / June 11, 2011

The Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, in response to criticism it was sanctioning a celebration of Gay Pride month, announced yesterday that it had ordered a South End church to cancel a Mass scheduled for next weekend that was themed, “All are Welcome.’’

The decision outraged members of the lesbian and gay community.

“I think that’s horrible, just horrible, that they would cancel,’’ said Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of DignityUSA, an organization that advocates for participation of gays in the Catholic Church. “What an abuse of authority. I wish I could be surprised, but I’m definitely appalled.’’

In its most recent bulletin, St. Cecilia Parish said that it had planned a “liturgy to commemorate Boston Pride 2011’’ for later this month.

“The Rainbow Ministry of St. Cecilia Parish invites all friends and supporters of the LGBT community to a Mass in celebration of Boston’s Pride Month,’’ the bulletin said. “The theme of the liturgy, ‘All Are Welcome,’ honors Christ’s message of hope and salvation to all people. We will also celebrate the diverse community that finds its home at St. Cecilia.’’

But after protests from conservative church members, the archdiocese intervened.

“The wording and placement of a bulletin notice announcing that the St. Cecilia Rainbow Ministry will be joining the parish at a Mass on June 19 may have given the unintended impression that the Mass is in support of Gay Pride Week; it is not,’’ said Terrence C. Donilon, a spokesman for the archdiocese. “The pastor will clarify this issue at the Masses this coming weekend.’’

The pastor of the church, the Rev. John J. Unni, did not return calls. Donilon said that he spoke for the parish and that the decision was made by senior officials at the archdiocese.

Donilon declined to answer questions about the apparent contradiction of the church’s bulletin and his statement. He said, however, that there would be a Mass in the future to welcome the community, but not specifically gays and lesbians.

Burke of DignityUSA called on the parish community to “resist the calls for canceling’’ and possibly move the event to a different location. “What kind of message does this send to the gays and lesbians in that parish?’’ she asked.

Susan Donnelly, a member of the parish council of St. Cecilia Parish, said the scheduled Mass had not sparked controversy at St. Cecilia’s. She said the criticism has come from outside.

“I find it hard to believe that Christians don’t believe the great variety of people as God made them is a lovely thing,’’ she said. “Nobody’s trying to celebrate people living in denial of what the church is teaching; it’s more we’re trying to celebrate the people who sit next to you in the pew. There’s no agenda other than that.’’

She added: “We have all kinds of people at our church. We have straight people and gay people, rich people and poor people, white people and people of color, old people and young people. We’re a community, a big tent.’’

Opposition to the Mass grew out of a post by a local blogger who writes under the pseudonym Joe Sacerdo and who has criticized the Archdiocese of Boston for what he describes as “relativism’’ and deviation from doctrine.

Sacerdo also criticized the parish for sponsoring an upcoming trip to the Boston Gay Men’s Chorus, which it also advertised in its most recent bulletin.

“I think it’s the right thing to do,’’ he said yesterday of the archdiocese’s decision. “There’s not a place for a Mass like that in the Catholic Church.’’

In his blog post Wednesday, he questioned Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley’s commitment to church doctrine: “What’s next, NY Rep. Anthony Weiner and Tiger Woods giving a talk at the church on the topic of marital fidelity?’’

“Celebrating a ‘Gay Pride’ Mass isn’t expressing the moral teachings of the church with clarity and fidelity or telling people their behavior is unacceptable — it’s telling them their behavior is just fine,’’ Sacerdo said.

He called on O’Malley to put the pastor on leave.

Donilon said that would not happen. “Father Unni has the full confidence and support of the Cardinal and the archdiocese,’’ Donilon wrote in an e-mail. “He is a great pastor.’’

Carol McKinley, another local conservative Catholic blogger, said she supported the archdiocese’s decision. “Pride is one of the cardinal sins in the Catholic Church,’’ she said. “It’s the opposite of humility.’’

She said that just as she does not celebrate her heterosexuality at Mass, gays and lesbians should not have that option.

“In Catholic teaching, talking about sexuality or anything outside the sacrament of marriage, is to be atoned,’’ she said. “We avoid temptation. We build our lives to completely comply with the teaching of the church.’’

But Charles Martel, co-founder of the Boston-based group Catholics for Marriage Equality, said he felt “deeply disappointed’’ that the archdiocese would take such action.

“That there are those who can exert pressure on the archdiocese to express a hatred for gay people is a sad statement,’’ he said. “That’s how it’s going to be understood by the community.’’

(End of story. My comments follow.)

Note the outrage, as if acceptance and endorsement of homosexual acts is something to be given without question. Note how the archdiocese has to go on the defensive for directing the parish to conform with Church teaching.

Most of all, please take note that some pewsitters needed to speak up when clergy members were very happily committing mortal sin and leading the congregation into the acceptance of it.

This is where we're at right now, in a few more years it will be much more contentious as those loyal to Rome battle against those who aren't. The former will be derided and cast as "haters", "bigots", etc. The latter group of Quislings will provide cover for the persecution of faithful Catholics.

Stand by, stand strong, we're in for interesting times.

If we HAVE to talk about that hot dog, Anthony Weiner...

Found this at www.speroforum.com:
What if Congressman Weiner were Reverend Weiner?

Wednesday, June 08, 2011
William Donohue

Priests who engage in lewd conversations with teenagers are suspended from ministry for committing a "boundary violation," and are charged with sexual abuse. But Rep. Anthony Weiner can send pornographic images of himself to young girls and he is free as a bird. Indeed, the majority of New Yorkers say he should not resign.

Joe Garofoli of the San Francisco Chronicle says Weiner's "biggest sin may not have been sexual"—it was "lying."

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine says that "Lying is unforgivable," but has no comment on his sexual offenses.

Joan Walsh of Salon confesses that "The lying is what disturbs me."

S.E. Cupp's article in the New York Daily News is flagged, "The disgraced congressman should resign, but immorality has nothing to do with it."

Similarly, Leslie Savan of the Nation wonders, "How can you be so stupid?"

Ilene Angel of the Huffington Post opines, "I honestly don’t care" what Weiner did.

Glenn Greenwald of Salon chalks it all up to "voyeuristic fun."

Conor Friedersdorf in the Atlantic contends that we, the people, are the problem: we spend too much time "focusing on the sexual behavior of egocentric alpha males who spend a lot of time traveling far from home."

In a Time interview, Erica Jong not only gives Weiner a pass, she exculpates Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Arnold Schwarzenenegger, Rep. Chris Lee, John Edwards and Eliot Spitzer: they all suffer from "a form of mental illness."

To top things off, Joy Behar believes that "Somebody is out to get him, apparently 'cause they don’t like his politics." Weiner agrees: he told a donor last week that this was all due to a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

In other words, if the guilty party were Rev. Weiner, he would be sanctioned by the Catholic Church's "zero tolerance" policy. But because he is Rep. Weiner, there are no penalties. As usual, it's not the offense that matters—it's the status of the offender.

Weiner and truly important things...

Why is so much attention given to an idiot who won't stop sniffing around younger women when our Chief Executive is arrogantly involving us in a war with complete disregard to the War Powers Resolution of 1973?

The question needs to be asked of not only the MSM but also Drudge, Breitbart, etc.

Gun control doublespeak at it's finest...

Found this at www.foxnews.com:

Brady Center Sues Florida Over 'Gag' on Doctors Asking About Firearms

A top gun control group has filed suit against a recently passed Florida law restricting doctors from asking patients about whether they own firearms, claiming the policy tramples on First Amendment rights.

The first-in-the-nation law, signed last week by Gov. Rick Scott, would prohibit doctors from recording information about whether a patient owns a gun. It also restricts them from asking about whether patients own a gun unless that information is relevant to their medical care.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, along with another law firm and groups representing doctors, filed suit Monday asking a U.S. District Court judge in Florida to strike down the law.

The suit, which disparagingly refers to the policy as the "physician gag law," complained that it was too vague and too strict and could lead doctors to "self-censor" -- to the detriment of their patients.

"By severely restricting such speech and the ability of physicians to practice such preventative medicine, the Florida statute could result in grievous harm to children, adolescents, adults, and the elderly," the suit said.

But Scott's office defended the law, noting that it only bars doctors from inquiring about firearms if that information is not relevant to a patients' care or the safety of others.

"The law ensures respect for a patient's right to own or possess a firearm and protects them from potential discrimination and harassment in cases where it is not relevant to the patient's medical care or safety, or the safety of anyone else in the home," spokesman Lane Wright said in an email.

Backers of the law, including author Rep. Jason Brodeur, claimed they were trying to prevent doctors from invading personal privacy. The law was spawned after a Florida pediatrician told a mother to seek another doctor after she refused to answer questions about firearms in her home.

Sponsors also expressed concern that medical records reflecting information about firearms could be shared with insurance companies, potentially leading to higher rates. Indeed, the law includes a provision barring insurance companies from raising premiums or denying coverage based on whether an applicant owns a gun.

But the American Academy of Pediatrics, a party to the suit, claimed the law would do harm because pediatricians should be able to provide "anticipatory guidance" to prevent injury to children.

The Brady Center said doctors should be urging parents to keep firearms under lock and key, and away from kids.

"This gun lobby-backed gag law is a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of doctors and patients to discuss the severe risks posed by guns in the home, particularly to children," Brady Center President Paul Helmke said in a statement.

(Story ends here. My comments follow.)

What a steaming crock of shit. "...clear violation of the First Amendment rights of doctors and patients..." my ass.

This follows along a scenario I spoke about to my wife some time ago. She saw nothing wrong with telling the pediatrician that we have firearms in the house. I then spun the scenario of our kids getting quizzed about the location of the guns and ammo, whether they were locked up, etc. Then I mentioned that it would only take one call to the right CPS worker to come to our house in the company of a local cop to "insure the safety of our kids". According to my scenario, the CPS worker could not be denied entry, if I tried that she would merely tell the cop accompanying her that she felt the kids were in imminent danger. They would then be able to come into the house, under these circumstances just what are the odds our means of storing the guns & ammo would pass muster and our children NOT be taken away "for their own good"?

Does that sound too farfetched? Paranoid? Noted.

Whats in my home is my business and none of the doctor's. End of story. That applies to firearms, religious articles, political writings, etc. They can find another method of having the Thought Police demand an accounting from me and mine.

The Brady Center and the American Academy of Pediatrics is attempting to set up the exact scenario I mentioned to my wife. Welcome to Amerika comrades.

Supporting gay rights with our tax dollars.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Paying in pennies deemed senseless...

Found this on Yahoo News, (H/T to MightyMom):

Penny offense: Man fined for paying fee in pennies
By Claudine Zap

No lucky pennies here: Police have charged Jason West, an aggrieved medical patient in Vernal, Utah, with disorderly conduct. His alleged crime? Attempting to pay a disputed medical bill of $25 entirely in pennies.

The story, reported in the Salt Lake City Deseret News, describes the "penny offense" this way: West, 38, did not believe he owed the medical clinic $25 but came in to pay the fee in person. He first asked the clinic staff if the facility accepted cash payments, and then dumped 2,500 pennies onto the counter and demanded that they be counted.

But West apparently hadn't counted on the clinic calling the police; the arresting officer contended that West's protest served "no legitimate purpose." The charge carries a fine that can go as high as $140--and there's no word as yet on what currency West will use to pay it.

West isn't alone in the ranks of penny protesters. A wise guy in Frederick, Maryland, showed up at the county clerk's office last summer with bags of cash to pay off his tax bill with $966.86 in change.

And a New Jersey school district a few years back punished 29 students who paid for their $2 school lunches in pennies--possibly as a prank--with two-day detentions. After parents protested, the students were pardoned. The school explained that the use of the small change slowed down the lunch line.

(End of story. My comments follow.)

Okay, the guy is an idiot. No quibbles with that one. Making life miserable for the cube ape who takes the money when his real problem is with whoever refused to agree he never owed it, is being petulant on the level of a 11 year old girl.

But calling the cops? Give me a break! Seems he's not the only childish one here and probably a lot less so than the clinic staff. The cop doesn't get any points either, he could have just noted pennies are legal tender and the coin of the realm then just moved on to other things.

Let the chair polishing beauracrats get the upper hand and they'll always nickel-and-dime the rest of us to death. I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that the man walks on this one as long as he refuses to cave and asks for no quarter. Anything else would make no sense/cents.

Yes bad puns are still legal, no matter how we may wish otherwise.

On Palin, Paul Revere and head fakes...

So Sarah Palin seemed to make a colossal "uh-oh" in saying that Paul Revere warned the British. I honestly thought it was just another oopsie, kind of like B.O. saying there are 57 states or Ronald Reagan stating trees generate carbon dioxide. No biggie, everybody screws up except the guy who does absolutely nothing and that by itself can be a screwup. So there. End of story.

Well it turns out Palin knew exactly what she was talking about. Check this out from the L.A. Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/sarah-palin-says-paul-revere-warned-the-british.html

I don't think it was an accident this happened. Palin is a lot smarter than most give her credit for. I'd bet my next retirement check she laid this particular trap for her MSM detractors just to see how they'd take it and run. She's sharp, really sharp.

So sharp I wouldn't be surprised if this whole "see America" tour of hers in NOT a prelude to a run for President in 2012. She keeps playing coy on the topic, which increases the attention she gets. I'm willing to bet when the time comes to formally declare her candidacy she'll step back and basically say, "Honestly folks, I never said I'd run and I have no ambition to. Hey, thanks to all the lies, half-truths and outright BS generated against me I'm so politically toxic I glow in the dark so what are the chances I'd succeed?"

Then she'll throw her support behind someone else, my bet is on Michele Bachmann but it could be Herman Cain. It WILL NOT be Romney, Pawlenty or any RINO.

After that Sarah Palin will retire from the public view, laughing all the way to the bank on how she snookered all her MSM detractors and their liberal allies.

Revenge is a dish best served cold and I'd say she's dishing it out right now.

Ann Barnhardt on Mitt Romney...

To hear this turn off the Playlist at the top. She cuts him three ways; deep, wide and continuous.



(H/T to Moonbattery)

Anti-Semitic comic book defended as preventing child abuse.

I was trying to ignore the story about banning male circumcision in San Francisco. Some things are just too damned idiotic to be mentioned. But the latest round in this insanity deserves notice: http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=223586

Honestly, how simultaneously anti-Semitic and politically correct can you be in this nation? "Monster Mohel"? It's something to expect in a parody article. But I guess you just can't make this stuff up.

The Jews are the canaries in our cultural coal mine. When they become accepted targets of opportunity it's time for the rest of us to wake up and pay attention, if for no other reason than that nowhere in the New Testament is their status as God's Chosen People revoked. We may all be His children, but like any other father He may very well have favorites.

If anyone thinks thats BS perhaps they can explain how the Jews have survived over the centuries? Being the favorite can also explain why they've had it so hard, lots of times that position means more is expected of you than of siblings.

Regardless, what was old is becoming new again as the Jews are openly persecuted for any reason that comes to hand.

Wonder how soon it'll be before Hollywood films, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? I've inlaws that would gladly pay to see that POS on film. I'm not talking about lowbrowed Neanderthals either. They're fairly well educated, respected in the community, etc. My point in mentioning this is to emphasize Jew-hating isn't confined to losers out of a trashy trailer park who parade around in white sheets and hoods.

UPDATE:Scotju has corrected me on the subject of Jews still being Chosen People of God. Okey-dokey thats one of the beauties of the internet, if you don't get something correct theres always someone who will help you out.

On pets, pooper scooper laws, strays and other animal related problems.

Found this at www.americanthinker.com:

The End of Family Pets?
By Jack Curtis
Dogs and cats joined us as symbiotes a long time back; we made most of them dependent pets and now that they can't survive on their own. Now we're throwing them under the bus. The termination is the -- probably -- unintended result of SPCA, PETA, innumerable tender-hearted or at least vote-hungry elected city and county officials and decades of anthropomorphized Disney creatures but it's no less terminal for that. We're eliminating these critters in order to save them. It isn't that we love our pets less; rather that we love Gaia more. And she doesn't poop inconveniently.

This ending has been sneaking up on us for a while. On the farm, dogs and cats had only to please -- or at least, not annoy -- the farmer. Once they started turning up in cities, that changed. Dog bites, rabies, barking, and poop annoyed besides mail carriers, increasing numbers of voters; politicians took notice. How cats were unlucky enough to be sucked in is less obvious but they were; possibly another case of the wrong place at the wrong time. Or maybe it was the songbirds.

First, licenses were required, with fees to pay for city animal services. A bureaucracy appeared in local governments and various volunteer groups were formed, all increasing the available money and political interest in pets. As city dwellers grew wealthier, veterinary practitioners added pets to their formerly mostly farm practices and joined the growing cadre of lobbyists.

The licenses were the first sign that pets were no longer private business. Euthanasia of strays came too. Government regulation of dog and cat fertility clarified who was in charge for any doubters; spay and neuter laws proliferated. Declining numbers of farms didn't care anymore; increasing numbers of city folk did. To please them, places like New York City mandated the famous Pooper Scoopers along with leash laws. Computer technology brought the embedded chip to replace the metal license tag that once jingled on dog collars.

That covers a lot that's happened to pets fairly quickly. At one time, a schoolboy might have been accompanied by his dog anywhere but school; it was expected. No one expected a leash; the dog ran free, always keeping his boy as the center of his explorations. He wasn't neutered, though females, less common, were often spayed after a litter or two. That, please note, was in residential neighborhoods, not only farms. Today, things have changed. Those changes affect more than dogs; young boys' unsupervised wanderings for hours at a time, usual then, are pretty scarce among today's kids, let alone the dogs.

In recent years, those paying attention can see a trend: Society's room for pets has been shrinking, with government enforcing the shrinkage. After licensing, with the dogcatcher, euthanasia and sterilization in place, laws were added forbidding tying a dog in a yard. In Albuquerque, an annual $150 permit is required for that and a trolley must be provided. A litter requires a permit too, for another $150 and there's a cap. Public parks now provide fenced exercise yards for dogs, the only places they are allowed to be unleashed in public.

The future is coming clear in two new laws: In Albuquerque, it's now unlawful to leave a dog alone for very long. The cost of maintaining a dog is moving toward parity with that of maintaining a kid; not only with needing dog-sitters but with health care; health insurance for dogs and cats is a growing market. A recent vet's bill for diagnosing and euthanizing an elderly pooch, a two-hour office visit mostly spent waiting, was $300.

The second and most unmistakable signal is laws popping up around the country simply banning the retail sale of dogs and cats. Examples are Austin, Texas, and West Hollywood, California. The San Francisco city fathers have been considering a similar ban, so has the state of New Jersey and the City of El Paso. Some of these include small animals and birds in the ban.

Most of this has been a response to lobbying from animal welfare folk whose stated concerns center on the miseries of abused, abandoned and inadequately cared-for pets plus protection of the earth from feral cat fecundity; the irony of saving the pets by legislating them out of their habitat doesn't seem to be recognized.

Our pets won't go extinct; cats will take care of themselves and dogs will continue as pets for those who can afford them and as workers where their work is economically justified. But it seems clear that middle-class family pets are following the stay-at-home mom to the museum and if you think about it, for similar reasons. From a quick look at things, kids might be next...

(End of story, my comments follow.)

Sometimes stories come out of that prove we who hold traditional values are as likely as lefty loons to start shouting without thinking about nonexistent problems. This is one of those stories.

Pooper Scooper Laws? Blame the owners who felt free to let "Fido" take a colossal dump wherever he wanted and then walked away from it. In NYC especially it was a massive problem.

Leash laws? FWIW, as a child in a New York suburb I lived in a house on a corner lot. ALL THE DOGS of the neighborhood seemed to like congregating there to do their "duty", especially after night fell. My old man got so sick of it he purchased an air rifle and started shooting the mutts in the ass whenever they showed up. Took care of the problem, pissed off a lot of dog owners too. But they weren't dealing with kids who had played in a yard and came in after inadvertently rolling in dogshit.

Neuter laws? It used to be common to take an unwanted litter of cats or dogs, put 'em in a burlap sack with some bricks and heave the sack into a nearby stream. Either that or just put the litter in a cardboard box and dump it in the middle of a residential street. Nowadays, not so much of that goes on although in my own little corner of paradise we have a stray cat problem. Periodically they'll be attracted to our house by the two felines we keep indoors. Once the smell of cat piss gets noticeable I'll put out a bowl of antifreeze and a few days later we're back to normal. Is it cruel? Maybe but our local animal control people won't come get the animals and I can't blame 'em either. Have you ever tried catching a feral cat?

Some of it gets extreme, no argument there. My wife's father & stepmother looked at getting a cat from the local CatNazi Shelter. They had to agree (in writing!) to not declaw it, not keep "Kitty" indoors and a few other completely nonsensical items. Noted. They went elsewhere.

There again, some people are so ridiculously ignorant of how to treat animals it's easy to see justification for the laws. In saying that I'm thinking of one acqaintance who kept an oversized Newfoundland dog in a 1300 sq. ft. house. This thing could stand on it's hind legs and look me in the eye, definitely an animal that needed a LOT of room to run in. I always considered it abusive to keep that mutt there, fortunately he eventually wound up on a farm.

Does the government take the regulatory ball and run with it as far as possible? Definitely. But some of those laws & regulations are more the result of thoughtless & inconsiderate fools than any attempt to further enmesh us in a governmental spider web of laws.

Can someone give me an "Amen"?

SAN ANTONIO — (AP) - A federal appeals court has lifted a ban on public prayer at a Texas high school graduation.

The ruling Friday reverses the decision of a lower court that sided with an agnostic family who sued the school district.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Medina Valley Independent School District.

The ruling allows students at the high school to say the words "amen" and invite the audience to pray during Saturday's graduation ceremony.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Christa and Danny Schultz, whose son is graduating. The family's suit was being backed by the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The Schultzes claim traditions at graduation, including the invocation and benediction, excluded their beliefs and violated their constitutional rights.

(Story ends here, my comments follow.)

Well THAT is some good news!

I've a sledgehammer and know how to use it...

No, I am not kidding. This goes too damned far: New car purchases starting in June will have a mandatory black box installed

I recall when seat belt use was made mandatory. There was (and still is) a lot of hype about lives saved. Fair enough but once we start there the list keeps growing, so we see "sin tax" that is touted as helping folks get off obnoxious habits, food policies at local schools where no candy is sold but "healthy alternatives" are pushed (I wonder about a black market in Twinkies, Dr. Pepper and MoonPies. Some enterprising "tweens" have probably got one going.).

Do I need to go into detail about the suspension of games such as dodgeball or kickball at schools (on the plus side though, they get all the free condoms they need without having to tell "Mom & Dad") ? The requirement that kids don what looks like full body armor to ride a bike down the street? How about recommendations of pulling on steel toed boots, safety glasses, gloves, long sleeved pants & shirt for mowing the lawn (no, I'm not kidding).

Then there are the safety recommendations ( in some places they're actual laws) regarding firearms in the home. Put a trigger lock on them, place them in a locked gun safe, keep the ammo locked up in a seperate part of the house. Yeah, noted. I know I can do all of that and still "lock & load" quickly if somebody invites themselves into my house. Sure I can.

The nannystate in action. Where does it end?

From cradle to grave, they'll have us supervised. When the mother gets pregnant some twit will review the family's current size and income status to determine "quality of life" issues. Another chair-polisher will check mandatory lab tests for any possible birth defects. CPS will then interview the parents for suitability before everyone agrees about carrying the child to term or aborting it.

Then the family will be monitored over the years for eating habits, adherence to safety rules, and any possible thoughtcrimes detrimental to "Junior". Those thoughtcrimes would include speaking out against the most recently revised history being pushed in his class.

After the kiddo leaves the home (having successfully graduated from state run schools that provide the latest information on cultural/sexual/groupthink matters while ensuring there is no harm to self-esteem) they'll be encouraged to become active in the community. This will be accomplished by time in AmeriCorp, the Peace Corp, etc. Should the young adult elect military service, they'll be indoctrinated in the most up-to-date sociological programs.

Finally, at life's end the state will ensure a calm and painfree termination that Jack Kervorkian would have been proud of. Did you notice how he took no help in shuffling off his mortal coil?

Could someone please tell me I'm completely full of shit? I'd love to hear that just so I can delude myself into thinking it won't be all that bad. While you're at it, tell me this technology won't be expanded to more fully monitor us in our daily lives? All for our own good of course.

I guess it's time to stop looking for the wormhole out of this Bizarro universe, we're all stuck here. Time to hunker down and prepare to fight it out to the end. That end will be in some reeducation camp not yet built but coming soon.

"Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant"

Texas showdown with the TSA is back on?

Found this at thehill.com

Texas TSA pat down ban may be back
By Keith Laing - 06/02/11 02:18 PM ET

Texas lawmakers may reconsider a bill to outlaw controversial airport pat-downs, the sponsor of legislation that was shelved recently said this week.

Texas state Rep. David Simpson (R) said that Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst asked Gov. Rick Perry to include the measure in a special session of the Texas legislature. Dewhurst reported asked lawmakers to withdraw the bill when federal officials threatened to cancel flights to Texas if it passed.

But he has since had a change of heart, Simpson told fans on his Facebook page.

"The Lt. Gov. sent a letter to Gov. Perry asking him to include the TSA bill HB 1937 in the special session!," Simpson wrote on the website. "Please call the Governor and tell him you agree with Lt. Gov. Dewhurst!"

The measure would make it a misdemeanor for TSA agents would have been to pat down travelers who did not have probable cause for suspicion. The penalty would be a $4,000 fine and one year in jail.

If it is approved, it would be the first state law restricting TSA's security techniques.

Simpson sharply criticized the Department of Justice for threatening to respond to the bill, comparing it to the Texas Revolution.

"175 years ago in the first battle of the Texas Revolution against Mexico, a small band of Texans stood in defiance at Gonzalez, turning back the attempt to deprive them of their weapon of defense, a single cannon," he wrote in a letter to Perry, Dewhurst, Texas House Speaker Joe Straus and Attorney General Gregg Abbott.

"Gentlemen, we find ourselves at such a watershed moment today," Simpson continued. "The federal government is attempting to deprive the citizens of Texas of their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution. If we do not stand for our citizens in the face of this deprivation of their personal rights and dignity, who will?"

TSA has continue to argue the proposed legislation is unconstitutional, saying it would be nullified by the supremacy clause of the U.S. constitution.

A measure similar to the Texas bill has been introduced in Utah.

(End of story, my comments follow.)

My wife is a native born Texan, her birthday is March 2nd which is also Texas Independence Day. She feels there are two states, Texas and the others.

If this thing passes there will be no living with the woman.

When do you let strangers care for family?

A little background to this post: My mother resides in an assisted living facility about 2 miles away. She's 85, not quite in her right mind, needs someone to monitor her taking her meds, getting bathed, etc.

I've never even considered having her live with me. Ain't happening, to be honest we never were that close. I maintain contact and visit once every 2-3 weeks more out of a sense of duty than anything else.

But I was raised at a time when you took care of family at home. Putting someone in "the old folks home" was just warehousing them and considered rather despicable.

So theres some inner conflict about the whole setup.

What brings this up is the following article found at http://www.latimes.com/ via Lucianne.com:
Death of 91-year-old spotlights line between care and killing

In reading the article I was initially revolted to read of the level of filth in the home. But thinking about it I came to the conclusion that perhaps the niece was just a slob. That isn't a crime. I've known families where filth was a part of daily life. Children from those families grew up just as healthy as those from cleaner homes. Some of those children continued living like pigs, others seemed to become uber neat freaks and cleanliness nuts. But like I said, being a slob isn't criminal, just disgusting.

Regarding the main thrust of the article, I came away with the sense that we'll see more problems of this sort as geriatric medicine improves. Taking care of the very elderly will require an increasingly higher level of medical knowledge, not to mention additional time. John & Joan Q. Public won't have that know how or time at their disposal, so nursing facilities, hospices, etc. will proliferate.

The most any family will be able to do is find the best facility. That would be one where mercy killings won't happen and elder abuse isn't present. It isn't much but its what we can expect when two income families are the norm and a stay-at-home caregiver is a real exception. That caregiver also needs a lot more formal schooling on caring for old folks than was needed in past times. We can pontificate all we want about the decline of personal relationships involved in this, we can decry the inability of society to compassionately care for it's weakest members, it's still a situation to recognize and work with.

Does it sound cold & callous? Maybe it is. Maybe I'm only trying to justify my own choices regarding my mother.

I don't know. But the hyperlinked article proves once again this ain't the world of 50-60 years ago. Someone else can decide if thats good or bad, the rest of us just have to deal with it.